Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

<scribe> scribe: Daniel

Defining implementations

Wilco: I have been working in code to make the definition of implementation work
... Found a problem. What to do if an implementation procedure reports more than one results per each case
... For example if it says a test case both fails and passes
... Questions?

Update common input aspects

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/524/files

Wilco: AGWG suggested updates to the common input aspects document. Now we use positive language
... Carlos and JEan-Yves both approved this, is everybody else in agreement with this?

<Wilco> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR #524 for publication

<kathyeng> +1

<trevor> +1

<Will_C> +1

<Todd> +1

<JennC> +1

Accept PR 524 for publication

+1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 524 for publication

ACT rules sheet and Surveys

<Wilco> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OSkPFocXk4K3zYLnwS78WLsWO4PvE5yRcsauyefuIUI/edit#gid=0

Trevor: I think line height is pretty much ready. Jean-Yves asked for some thing but we are really close now

Kathy: I have a PR waiting for approval, not sure about the other two PRs

Wilco: There is one from Carlos that I approved

Trevor: 1683 is mine

Kathy: Mine is 1725, the other two are 1386 and 1444

Wilco: Two rules surveying, survey ended today
... The rule on lang attribute has been approved by AG but not yet published

audio or video avoids automatically playing audio

Wilco: Audio or video avoids automatically playing audio

Kathy: None of the examples auto play, but code looks good and consistent

Wilco: Maybe this is disabled by default in Chromium based browsers?

Jenn: I am good with consensus, not feeling strongly

Wilco: Non-interference required for conformance?

Kathy: I think it should be 2.0 and higher

Wilco: That is a bug in the website, should not persist when we published. I will look into that
... Do you mind if we leave that?

Kathy: Sure

Wilco: Currently there is one open issue. Looking at the survey results, it seems we can publish without this issue being resolved
... Some thought this needed to be merged with the other atomic rules, now it seems the group have changed their mind

Kathy: Shall we close the issue? Sounds like the majority of us feel it is no longer important

Wilco: We can close the issue
... I will communicate with Carlos about this
... If some months from now we get a rule like it is envisioned in that PR, would we be OK with that?
... Seems that PR is no longer a blocker, but he is free to continue working on it if desired
... Accessibility support that Chrome no longer auto plays audio, I think that is useful to do.
... I feel we should update the accessibility support section before we publish
... Any volunteers?

Will: I can try

Trevor: I can help if needed

headers attribute specified on a cell refers to cells in the same table element

Wilco: Table header cells refers to cells in the same table

Kathy: Not sure about the note in expectations

Wilco: I agree. These look a little redundant

Trevor: We may want to put these in the background

Wilco: Kathy, would you be OK with that?

Kathy: Yes

Wilco: Example 3 fails because the target does not have a rowheader or columnheader role
... Jenn's comment sounds like an observation. Should we change that?
... Accessibility support section looks a bit empty. Karen, do you have an example with two tables that have the same headers?

Karen: If you had a second table with headers with the same id values, would it do something to this rule?

Wilco: It would. And it is something that this rule may need to handle

Trevor: Wouldn't we have a duplicate id rule?

Wilco: Was not published by AGWG

Trevor: I think it is necessary but slightly off-topic for this rule
... Why AGWG objected for the duplicate id rule?

Wilco: Some thought it was too strict to fail WCAG
... Are we OK with an assumption that says that the ids are unique?
... If the assumption does not happen it is because it is tested somewhere else

Kathy: Could we stick this in assumption one?

Wilco: That would be talking about two different things then

Kathy: Yes, I see

Wilco: Daniel #1767

Daniel: Should we consistent with SC name?

Wilco: Yes.
... We have several things to be updated. Karen, would you say yes once updated?

Karen: Yes

Wilco: We need a liaison for this

Daniel: I think I can do most of this one

Wilco: Not sure if we will have surveys for next week, still working on script to automate the sheet a bit more

Open ACT pull requests

Wilco: Daniel's is approved now
... Carlo's is not relevant for us at the moment
... Karen will review #1762
... #1761 that was also feedback from AG, Karen will review
... Good amount or PRs from Helen. Checks on the rules that have more than one SC and see if we could remove some. I not necessarily agree with your assessment
... Can I ask a couple of people to review?

Trevor: I can do

Wilco: Use DFN elements
... Jean-Yves suggested to use dfn elements for inline definitions
... Applies in applicability, expectations, etc
... Then we suggest that we could use an id to use the term in other places
... That id includes the rule id to make sure that is unique
... This is the latest iteration and was approved by the CG

Trevor: How are we going to find these ids?

Helen: This are per page, there was an issue that it could conflict with the actual definitions in the glossary

Trevor: How does this look when it is rendered?

Wilco: I would like this to be rendered as bold text

Trevor: Would it take you to the referenced term?

Wilco: nothing on the CG, let's see on the how we could do this on he WAI website

Kathy: Would we include styles here?

Wilco: Yes. If you have further comments, leave them in this PR, 1744